Osaw Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Executive Engineer (Operation) UHBVN Ltd. and Another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.8.2010, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide which order dated 9.9.2008, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala Cantt. was set aside and appeal of Respondents was allowed and as a consequence thereof application for ad interim injunction filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala.

Briefly stated Petitioner-Plaintiff is consumer of electricity by taking an electricity connection from Respondent-Defendants for running his industry since the year 1984. The industry of present Petitioner-Plaintiff is situated outside industrial estate developed by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (in short `HSIDC''). Plaintiff was getting electricity supply from industrial feeder from which the industries situated in industrial area developed by HSIDC were also getting the supply. On the request of President of Industrial Area Association and taking into consideration other relevant facts, Respondent-Defendants proposed to segregate the industrial load from other urban/mixed urban load from 11 Civil Revision No. 5519 of 2010(O&M) -2-KV feeder line providing supply to industries situated in industrial Estate and hence there is proposal to supply electricity to present Petitioner-Plaintiff from other feeder by disconnecting supply from 11 KV line from which electricity is being supplied to present Petitioner-Plaintiff industry. Case of present Petitioner-Plaintiff is that he, as a matter of right, is entitled for getting the supply of electricity from the present industrial feeder. However, counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff has failed to show any specific contract or agreement vide which Respondent-authorities had assured that for all times to come the industrial unit of Petitioner-Plaintiff would continue to get electricity supply only from industrial feeder. It has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, while passing the impugned order that Plaintiff cannot compare his industry with those industries which were set up in the Industrial area of HSIDC as they had purchased the industrial plots by paying huge amounts to run their units in the industrial area and hence entitled to the better amenities, as assured by the government, including uninterrupted power supply and hence, Plaintiff''s industry cannot claim parity with the industries situated within the industrial area. There is also no dispute that no other industry which is situated outside the industrial area and similarly situated as that of Plaintiff''s industry is getting electricity supply from the industrial feeder.

This matter came up before a coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.8.2010, and the following order was passed:

Prima facie this Court is not convinced with the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Courts neither have expertise nor should they travel in the domain which falls exclusively in the area of technocrats. The Petitioner wants that the arrangement from which he is getting supply of electricity should not be disturbed. It is totally in the domain of the electricity authorities who are the best judge to evaluate the needs of the industries, residents and to supply them the power from whatever sources they deem appropriate.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for some time to produce some material to persuade this Court. Adjourned to 4.10.2010." Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff has failed to show any material to persuade this Court that industry of Petitioner-Plaintiff has right to get the electricity from a particular feeder.

Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004(1) RCR 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

The case of present Petitioner-Plaintiff is not covered under the said principle of law. It cannot be said that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned to the Petitioner-Plaintiff by passing the impugned order by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, warranting interference by this Court.

There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order by this Court shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court.